Anybody plan on grabbing one of the new RX7xxx Navi cards on launch?

Surly

Limp Gawd
Joined
Apr 26, 2003
Messages
357
I feel calling it a poor showing is overly critical. And I say this as a pretty much certain 4090 buyer. It would be a poor showing if they priced it a few hundred cheaper than the 4090. It is six hundred dollars cheaper. At a minimum.

It's obviously not a slam dunk, but it is fairly likely to shit all over the 4080 (and only be moderately behind in RT).
 
Last edited:
Joined
Mar 19, 2011
Messages
672
I feel calling it a poor showing is overly critical. And I say this is a pretty much certain 4090 buyer. It would be a poor showing if they priced it a few hundred cheaper than the 4090. It is six hundred dollars cheaper. At a minimum.

It's obviously not a slam dunk, but it is fairly likely to shit all over the 4080 (and only be moderately behind in RT).
The scarcity of performance metrics speaks volumes though. At least Nvidia gave us enough information to gauge where the 4080 16GB and 4080 12GB would land in terms of their performance. It's the whole reason people made a full forcing Nvidia to un-launch the 4080 12GB in the first place. It feels like AMD doesn't seem to want people making a fuss until it's too late.
 

LukeTbk

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
3,350
"Higher model numbers mean more dollars we can charge and pretend it's a better deal"... gotta love marketing people, they figure your all sheep and wont realize what you just said.

2020 MSRP
6900xt: $1,000 ($1147 today), 80CU, 16GB
6800xt: $650 ($745.43 today), 72CU, 16GB, 90% of the CU 100% of the ram

2022 MSRP
7900xtx: $1000, 96 CU, 24 GB
7900xt: $900, 84 CU, 20 GB, 87.5% of the CU, 83.333% of the ram

Despite a quite possible larger gap than between the 6800xt and the 6900xt of the previous generation, the price is much closer.

That closer price at least it has much the xtx being cheaper than the previous 6900xt than the 7900xt costing more than the 6800xt.

Will have to see but would they have called it a 7800xt an sold it $699, it would it have been incredible increase in that tier.

if we call the xtx the regular x900xt, that would be what a strait 55-75% boost in performance from gen to gen, would that be significantly better than even Pascal ?
 

RJ1892

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Apr 3, 2014
Messages
1,347
lol AMD… another poor showing. First the CPUs and now the GPU.
I would hardly call this a bad showing. Yea they didn't beat the 4090 in RT performance. If you calculate based on efficiency gains (assuming they are accurate) with the 355w TDP the card should be 1.659x the performance of the 6950XT on average which trade blows with the 4090 in rasterized workloads at $1000. I think it's a better choice than the RTX 4080 in that price range.
 

LukeTbk

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
3,350
Has of now I feel like it was more a poor presentation (if that we mean by showing) than a poor product, how a 50%-60-70% gen on gen boost on GPU not anything else than extraordinary, with a GPU significantly cheaper xtx versus the previous one and a similar TDP, if it was not some cherry picking it should have been more spectacular.

Maybe if they would started with some, we are not beating the 4090 and go all in on the value side instead of trying to hide that comparable, if you known the price tag in advance, seeing 88%-96% of the performance for 63% of the price of the 4090 on graph would not have looked bad at all.
 
Last edited:

KickAssCop

Supreme [H]ardness
Joined
Mar 19, 2003
Messages
7,349
I don’t care about price or power. I care about speed and for me it is a poor showing. YMMV.
 

NightReaver

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
2,091
Has of now I feel like it was more a poor presentation (if that we mean by showing) than a poor product
Agreed. The presentation itself left a lot to be desired. But the capabilities of the card itself is a different story.
 

NKD

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
9,387
I do not like the naming. It seems like these should have been the 7900XT and 7800XT. Why not follow the historical patterns we all know and understand. It's almost like they want to confuse buyers.
First the dumb naming virus got to Nvidia and now it has infected AMD.
Does it reallt matter when the pricing is pretty good though?

Only thing you can knock on is them wanting for you to buy 7900xtx instead of xt. It’s clear by the pricing gap.
 

cvinh

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Sep 4, 2009
Messages
2,017
I'd say the presentation sucked cause of the speakers. If they have sports announcers presenting that shit, everyone would be hyped. The pricing does have me hype. Even at $1200 I would have considered the 7900 XTX but now $999 vs the 4080? No brainer imo.
 

NightReaver

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
2,091
They gave framerates in a handful of popular games, and a ballpark "60% faster than last gen" figure. What else do you want?
I'm sure even if they gave specific numbers against a 4090, 3090, 6900xt, etc a number of people would dismiss it as AMD "over promising".

Sometimes I wonder why they even bother with events like these. Save the numbers for the 3rd party reviews because anything else is a catch 22.
 

NKD

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
9,387
I'm sure even if they gave specific numbers against a 4090, 3090, 6900xt, etc a number of people would dismiss it as AMD "over promising".

Sometimes I wonder why they even bother with events like these. Save the numbers for the 3rd party reviews because anything else is a catch 22.

I mean they did say 54% perf/watt increase so you can take that as number. There are some peopel saying its going to be 20-40% lmao. They never lied about that number with RDNA2. You can just see perf/watt increase and be pretty assured its 50% minimum most cases but probably close to 55 or so. With AIB models fucking up the efficiency curve and getting you like 65-70% I guess.
 

RavenX

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 27, 2006
Messages
309
I thought amd was going to announce the 7950, or is that coming later next year?
 

NKD

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
9,387
LMAO coretek is going crazy. Almsot like his AMD sources were wrong and he sounds like a pissed off child lmao. Calling the 999 price to help amd pockets and its a failed product. Never seen him this mad. I mean if you gonna talk this much shit, show your face is my philosophy. He wants to hide behind a voice, which might be fake too. lol.

https://twitter.com/coreteks/status/1588667363121311745?s=20&t=qaAQUcKkSrKEa-JmUR5V4g
 
  • Like
Reactions: Axman
like this

NightReaver

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 20, 2017
Messages
2,091
LMAO coretek is going crazy. Almsot like his AMD sources were wrong and he sounds like a pissed off child lmao. Calling the 999 price to help amd pockets and its a failed product. Never seen him this mad. I mean if you gonna talk this much shit, show your face is my philosophy. He wants to hide behind a voice, which might be fake too. lol.

https://twitter.com/coreteks/status/1588667363121311745?s=20&t=qaAQUcKkSrKEa-JmUR5V4g
I'm so over people claiming that if a card doesn't take the absolute top spot then it's a failure. Whatever.
 

NKD

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Aug 26, 2007
Messages
9,387
I'm so over people claiming that if a card doesn't take the absolute top spot then it's a failure. Whatever.
Its nuts I mean have a 4090. But this card for price ain't bad gen over gen. I think RT should be respectable and playable now to. It is 80% bump in RT According to AMD, throughput compared to before is 2.7x and performance is 80%. That is probably worst case. But looks like its a decent bump. I wasn't expecting them to catch up to nvidia just yet. Hopefully RDNA4 takes an even bigger leap.
 

Decko87

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 23, 2007
Messages
2,167
2020 MSRP
6900xt: $1,000 ($1147 today), 80CU, 16GB
6800xt: $650 ($745.43 today), 72CU, 16GB, 90% of the CU 100% of the ram

2022 MSRP
7900xtx: $1000, 96 CU, 24 GB
7900xt: $900, 84 CU, 20 GB, 87.5% of the CU, 83.333% of the ram

Despite a quite possible larger gap than between the 6800xt and the 6900xt of the previous generation, the price is much closer.

That closer price at least it has much the xtx being cheaper than the previous 6900xt than the 7900xt costing more than the 6800xt.

Will have to see but would they have called it a 7800xt an sold it $699, it would it have been incredible increase in that tier.

if we call the xtx the regular x900xt, that would be what a strait 55-75% boost in performance from gen to gen, would that be significantly better than even Pascal ?
I didn't realize this was such a big gap... Has me worried they fucked up, or maybe there is a 7800 xt that's very, very close to the 7900 xt. If I'm a betting man, they won't produce very many 7900 xts, I'm guessing the yields on n31 are very good. Still though, 700 bucks would knock it out of the park.
 

LukeTbk

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
3,350
I didn't realize this was such a big gap... Has me worried they fucked up,
Me has well I started the message thinking I would end up saying otherwise, much closer card than 6800xt-6900xt because of both the price and naming making it look like so.

And after typing it I realized, is it possible we have not seen a single mention of the 7900xt performance all presentation long, not even a single number, percentage, absolutely nothing ?

You have 320 vs 384 bits bus, 2 vs 2.3ghz clock, smaller infinity cache, when the 6800xt had the same clock, memory bandwidth, cache, etc... we seem to be talking 12 to 17% slower across the board, it was a strange generation in that regard how little was gain for the price to go over the 3080-6800xt and both company seem to have turned that ship around, AMD aggressively so, you get a lot for $100 at that above $700 anyway category, so much more for 11% more dollars that it could make the card irrelevant if both actually exist at msrp.

Like you said, so much that maybe it will be more the $1200 AIB version that will have volumes for the 7900xt to make sense (and how well it competes with the current $515 6800xt/$650 6900xt at the $900 price tag, will have to wait and see.
 
Last edited:

crazycrave

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Mar 31, 2016
Messages
1,546
Aiming for competition against 4080, it says, not 4090.
I could see that,Nvidia always released the XX08 first from years past and XX90 has always been the going out party.

Also, he spoke about AM4 living on and the second time that was said, maybe keeping two product lines aimed at Intel. alot of good things in that video spoken about, that was not said on stage!
 

SamiiRoss

Gawd
Joined
Jan 8, 2012
Messages
670
I'm so over people claiming that if a card doesn't take the absolute top spot then it's a failure. Whatever.
AMD clearly stated the 7900xtx was not competing against 4090... the damn card is not even near close to the price bracket. no wonder why he got ratio'd. also, there are currently AIB-designs showing triple-8-pin, obviously they will have higher power and frequency.
 

Zorachus

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
10,715
I'm fine with the 7900XTX being a RTX 4080 competitive card.

The 4090 does not interest me one bit, due to it's high power draw and cable connection issues. It's like stuffing a space heater in your PC, no thanks. Plus the price, just on principle I'm not cool with being ok spending $1500+ on a video card, that in two years time is outdated, and then stupid to have in your PC, a huge power hungry brick sized GPU in your case when a smaller more efficient 5070 will match or beat it's performance.

Funny though, I'd be somewhat half serious on buying the 4090 if it was smaller and more efficient.

Even the RTX 4080 will have the 12 pin connector, wonder if that will also have issues? Or since it'll be a smaller card will have more room to allow the cables to fit safely?

So, good on AMD bringing a competitive new card to market at a much lower price point than than nVidia.

Just hope there's plenty of stock on release.
 
Last edited:

Keljian

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Nov 7, 2006
Messages
1,544
I very recently upgraded my 1080ti to a 3080ti (second hand). Buying graphics cards at launch is for those with more dollars than sense.
 

Zorachus

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
10,715
I very recently upgraded my 1080ti to a 3080ti (second hand). Buying graphics cards at launch is for those with more dollars than sense.

The 3080 Ti is a great card. If you don't mind me asking, what'd you pay? And what resolution do you game at?

Just for fun I've looked on Facebook Marketplace and see some 3090 FEs selling for $700, but I have no idea if that's a safe buy or legit?

I'm still on my RTX 3080 I bought exactly two years ago November 2020 for retail price of $749 at Microcenter :)

I would like to get the RTX 4080 but I will not pay $1200 for it, when two years ago my 3080 was $750.
 

Zorachus

[H]F Junkie
Joined
Dec 17, 2006
Messages
10,715
Pricing I just don't understand with Nvidia.

RTX 3090 at launch $1499
RTX 4090 at launch $1599

RTX 3080 at launch $699
RTX 4080 at launch $1199

So the 3090 to 4090 price difference isn't even 10% but the 3080 to 4080 is a 75% price increase, WTF

Why is the 4090 just a little bit of a price difference over the 3090, but the 4080 is crazy higher than the 3080.
 

ghostwich

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2014
Messages
2,201

LukeTbk

2[H]4U
Joined
Sep 10, 2020
Messages
3,350
I'm fine with the 7900XTX being a RTX 4080 competitive card.
At first, I did find it strange has the presentation was filled by chosen scenario that made it look competitive even at 4K, but in that slide:

759459_RDNA3_gaming_slide.jpg


For the non raytracing title
7900xtx vs 6950xt vs 6900xt

COD2: 139 vs 89 vs 82
GOW: 98 vs 68.6 vs 63.6
RDR2: 93 vs 77.1 vs 71.6
AC: 109 vs 87 vs 81

In 6900xt ratio:
COD
1.70​
1.09​
1.00​
GOW
1.54​
1.08​
1.00​
RDR
1.30​
1.08​
1.00​
ACV
1.35​
1.07​
1.00​
Avg
1.47​
1.08​
1.00​

In 6950xt ratio:
COD
1.56​
1.00​
0.92​
GOW
1.43​
1.00​
0.93​
RDR
1.21​
1.00​
0.93​
ACV
1.25​
1.00​
0.93​
Avg
1.36​
1.00​
0.93​

That 47% higher than a 6900xt while 36% higher than a 6950xt, while a 4090 is about 60% higher than a 3090TI while the 3090TI was in general at 4K a little bit over a 6950xt (8%-10%), maybe those 4 title are worst than average result, but if AMD chooses them in a very small sample I would imagine not ridiculously so, with all the game data presented the 7900xtx was in average 44% faster than the 6950xt.

Usually we would consider that an optimistic best case scenario because we are taking numbers from the company, but AMD track record in that regard is good enough to give them full benefit of the doubt and by driver release time +45% over the 6950xt seem perfectly reasonable.

Say the 3090Ti was 1.07 a 6950xt and the 4090 is 1.58 time a 3090TI.

1.45/(1.07*1.58) = .86, the 7900xtx could be in pure raster around .85-.88 time a 4090.

The 4080 16gb should be around 72% of a 4090, i.e. the 7900xtx could end up closer to the 4090 than the 4080 imo and during the presentation even if the 4090 was never named by name it was referenced all over.
 
Top